Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§
SolarWindow Technologies, Inc.

12 Cited authorities

  1. Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore

    439 U.S. 322 (1979)   Cited 4,325 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that district courts have discretion to refuse to apply offensive non-mutual collateral estoppel against a defendant if such an application of the doctrine would be unfair

  2. B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Indus., Inc.

    575 U.S. 138 (2015)   Cited 264 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding proceeding before the PTO's Trademark Trial and Appeal Board can have preclusive effect

  3. In re Morton-Norwich Products, Inc.

    671 F.2d 1332 (C.C.P.A. 1982)   Cited 110 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that configuration of "Glass Plus" spray-bottle warranted trademark protection

  4. Levi Strauss & Co. v. Abercrombie & Fitch Trading Co.

    719 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2013)   Cited 29 times
    Recognizing that voluntary dismissal with prejudice does not have issue preclusive effect

  5. SynQor, Inc. v. Vicor Corp.

    988 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2021)   Cited 14 times

    2019-1704 02-22-2021 SYNQOR, INC., Appellant v. VICOR CORPORATION, Appellee Steven J. Horowitz, Sidley Austin LLP, Chicago, IL, argued for appellant. Also represented by Thomas D. Rein ; Michael D. Hatcher, Dallas, TX. Matthew A. Smith, Smith Baluch LLP, Menlo Park, CA, argued for appellee. Also represented by Elizabeth Laughton ; Andrew Baluch, Washington, DC. Hughes, Circuit Judge. Steven J. Horowitz, Sidley Austin LLP, Chicago, IL, argued for appellant. Also represented by Thomas D. Rein ; Michael

  6. Mayer/Berkshire Corp. v. Berkshire Fashions, Inc.

    424 F.3d 1229 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 15 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Vacating TTAB dismissal that was based on preclusive effect of district court infringement litigation

  7. In re Bose Corp.

    476 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 11 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing in the context of administrative proceedings that courts should "exercise caution in applying claim preclusion in an ex parte proceeding"

  8. In re Bose Corp.

    772 F.2d 866 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 31 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding pentagonal shape of loudspeaker functional where applicant's promotional materials lauded shape as functional part of sound system

  9. Williams v. Five Platters, Inc.

    510 F.2d 963 (C.C.P.A. 1975)   Cited 9 times

    Patent Appeal No. 74-614. February 20, 1975. Greene Durr, New York City, attorneys of record, for appellant. George Gottlieb, Michael I. Rackman, Gottlieb, Rackman, Reisman Kirsch, New York City, attorneys of record, for appellee. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, RICH, LANE and MILLER, Judges, and ALMOND, Senior Judge. MARKEY, Chief Judge. Williams appeals from a decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, 181 USPQ 409 (1974), denying his motion

  10. Litton Industries, Inc. v. Litronix, Inc.

    577 F.2d 709 (C.C.P.A. 1978)   Cited 5 times

    Appeal No. 77-603. June 22, 1978. M. Michael Carpenter, Beverly Hills, attorney of record, for appellant. Henry C. Bunsow, Stephen S. Townsend, San Francisco, Cal. (Townsend Townsend, San Francisco, Cal.), attorneys of record, for appellee. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, RICH, BALDWIN, LANE, and MILLER, Associate Judges. MILLER, Judge. This appeal is from a decision of the Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ("board")

  11. Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification

    15 U.S.C. § 1051   Cited 3,923 times   127 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark

  12. Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,616 times   275 Legal Analyses
    Granting authority to refuse registration to a trademark that so resembles a registered mark "as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the goods of the applicant, to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive"